Consensual Government, Intellectual History, Liberal Arts

On Democracy, Part Fourteen

by Dave Seng
Alexander Hamilton

This is the final installment in the series on democracy. Part thirteen can be found here.

America began as a republic, shifted to a democracy, and now is little more than a constitutional bureaucracy. For example, the Western idea of debate and discussion among political parties in Congress is largely over. Parliamentarianism has died and much of the real work of Congress is now conducted in committees. Congressmen and women do spend time on the floor to promote their views but little real discussion occurs and the genuine work is done in committee to serve a particular party, not the people. In addition, presidential executive orders are often used to sidestep the work of congress. Either way, with these procedural moves, participatory and consensual government is undermined and rule of law is generally ignored. A bureaucracy of elites now determines what is best for the party, not the people or country at large. Another evidence of American bureaucratization is the specialized governmental departments and the sheer size of government. The historian John Lukacs gives us this telling example,

In the Middle Ages – indeed, until about the seventeenth century – kings had no specialized ministries; they depended on the councils of intimate advisors. In the second half of the twentieth century the elective monarchy of the American presidency assumed more and more of the characteristics of medieval kingship, with liege lords having the power to determine the very access to the monarch, to the extent that even cabinet officers could no longer call on the president on their own – that is, without the consent of the above-mentioned liege lords, who decided not only what and whom the president should see but also what he should hear – and perhaps what he should think.1

It is amazing to see how bureaucratic America has become and to contrast our current situation with Hamilton’s or Madison’s vision of America. Now, both parties will enlarge the government to maintain their own power at the expense of the individual citizen. This bureaucratic tendency can also be seen in another example. In the 1980’s the staff of Ronald Reagan’s wife in the White House was larger than Franklin Roosevelt’s at the height of the Second World War.2

These problems, the lack of proportional representation, the media, and the age of bureaucracy point to the need of recovering what the classical thinkers would call civic virtue. This idea of civic virtue is especially important since many elementary schools have now eliminated grades for citizenship and citizenship education. Aristotle would remind us that the success of nations rests on the education of our children. The Athenian and Roman empires fell because the people no longer understood what it meant to be an Athenian or Roman and no longer protected what they had. Likewise, America has moved from understanding itself as a “melting pot” to a mere clash of wills among different people groups.

Aristotle, however, connects morality, education, and politics together to build a virtuous society. For the ancients, the purpose of virtuous action aims at “eudaimonia” which means “well-being” or “happy-life.” The virtues are habits of conduct that provide a happy well being. Essentially this is achieved by finding the mean in ethical reflection and action. However, Aristotle’s starting point (along with much of ancient political philosophy) is that man is primarily a political animal. Moral excellence is not only necessary at the individual level but also at the social level, because society is made up of individuals and all forms of moral excellence (individual and social) strive for the common good – that which is good for everyone. When one works for the common good, he or she is working for their own good. Ancient moral philosophy stresses the idea of the “polis,” or social community, which is formed for the realization of a common good and, as in the individual; the virtues are conducive to the common good, or well-being of the community.3 In other words, the polis or state is then responsible for nurturing moral excellence and enacting laws contributing to the common good and well-being. The morally responsible individual contributes to the common good by encouraging the state or community to pass laws and behave in ways that support moral excellence and human well-being.

A core value for the ancient Romans was the Stoic notion of “officium.” This was a strong sense of commitment to fulfill the responsibilities the individual was born to fulfill within the state for the common good. Stoic moral philosophy is also based on the view that the world, as one great city, is a unity. Man, as a world citizen, has an obligation and loyalty to all things in that city. He must play an active role in world affairs, remembering that the world exemplifies virtue and right action.4 Therefore, Stoic political philosophy corresponds with much of Aristotle’s political thought in the emphasis of virtuous action aimed toward the common good, natural law, and a moral life based on rational reflection.

From the classical perspective, modern American individualism looks very strange. Classical ethical theory is focused on the larger community and the shared, common good to which the individual participants in that community contribute through their virtuous activity.5 Much more holistic in its approach, classical virtue theory would question much of modern American individualism focused simplistically on the rights of individuals. No one can pursue their own good completely isolated and independent from their social community or government. Furthermore, classical political theory would question the ideas of valuing a candidate simply because he was good looking, wealthy, popular, or articulate. The ancients would be first interested in the candidate’s ethical code and moral principles. The classical thinkers, therefore, would educate citizens to be virtuous contributors to society which is one of the greatest tasks of education today. The classical thinkers, therefore, would educate citizens to be virtuous contributors to society which is one of the greatest tasks of education today.

Time and again we find wisdom in ancients. The greatest thing about studying history is discovering the wisdom of the ages. Certainly, the ancients made mistakes, and we should learn from their errors, but they were different mistakes than we are making today. We learn from the Greeks the enduring nature of mankind. The Polish philosopher Leszek Kolakowski said that we don’t study history merely for finding facts or to acquire knowledge about events, but to discover who we are as a race. History shows us what it means to be alive on this planet. We can learn much from the ancients because they too believed in the Great Ideas. They began the great discussion of these ideas. Their self-reflective questioning, discussion, and debate of these ideas are often more thoughtful than contemporary thinking on many of these subjects, especially when it comes to a proper understanding of democracy. Aristotle considered democracy and ideal. Democracy will always be an ideal because it goes against the grain of human nature. Like the fabled Icarus, humans will always strive for more than they can attain, and always be tempted to go beyond natural human limitations. Human beings do not want to share power with others. Nonetheless, democracy, as an ideal should be attempted. Historically, it has given rise to the middle class and has provided more freedom and affluence than any other political system. Furthermore, democracy is an evolving idea. The values of Western civilization are not static but always seeking to improve and adapt. The Greeks and Romans were always willing to adapt and change when necessary. Therefore, we can be thankful to the great classical thinkers for the conversation and heritage built into the conversation of democracy.

1 Lukacs, John. Democracy and Populism: Fear and Hatred. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005.), 189.

2 Ibid.

3 Miller, 557.

4 “Stoicism.” Encyclopedia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopedia Britannica 2006 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD 5 July 2006.

5 Miller, 558.

Consensual Government, Intellectual History, Liberal Arts

On Democracy: Part Thirteen

by Dave Seng
John Jay 1745 – 1829

It is important to remember, however, that America is a product of the Enlightenment. Madison, Jay, Hamilton, and Washington were all (some more, some less) men of their times. The Enlightenment was a philosophical period of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, characterized by belief in the power of human reason and the perfectibility of mankind. There are several ideas that were emphasized during the Enlightenment but the primary ones are – all humans are by nature rational and inherently good and the idea of progress and whatever is new is intrinsically better than anything that has existed before. Also, a strong anti-authoritarianism existed among Enlightenment thinkers and custom, tradition, and especially religion have little value due to their irrational and superstitious nature. Some of the founders of America had a strong sense that America would be a source of progress and enlightenment to the rest of the world. Progress and democracy were now the rulers of a new world and provided the best hope for the world – the days of kings, lords, and nobles were clearly seen as over. Even Abraham Lincoln said that America “was the last best hope of mankind.” America would eventually see the rise of the Progressive Party.1 However, the twentieth century saw the disintegration of Enlightenment and Modernist ideas with the advent of two world wars. Progress seemed to be incredibly elusive. The twentieth century experienced the rise of postmodernism.

Postmodernism is a contemporary interdisciplinary movement that stresses the wholistic, pragmatic, historically relative, character of reality and knowledge.2 Postmodernism in some respects contains serious problems. Nonetheless, it has also clearly shown the errors of the Enlightenment and Modern eras.3 The perfectibility of mankind is no longer seen as inevitable. That which is new is no longer seen as better. People are now more likely to question a blind allegiance to progress. Postmodernism now provides some interesting possibilities for democracy and this is where the Greeks can help us. Since that which is new is no longer seen as valid, we can once again learn from the wisdom of the past. Because, in some ways, the Enlightenment project of progress and perfectibility failed, we can once again listen to the Greeks who would remind us of the unchanging nature of mankind. This nature is not always inherently good or perfectible. We, tragically, and concretely live in a world of absolutes and social programs that seek the utopian perfection of humanity are sorely disappointing. Reality (including political reality) has its own intractable way of being. This is why Plato’s utopian project failed when he tried to implement it in Syracuse. There is a certain logic and rhythm to human existence that transcends the rational and empirical. Human beings do not think or act in strict Enlightenment or rationalist categories. Enlightenment and Modernist theories of human nature were failures. The Greeks would remind us that we are all moved by the same desires, appetites, and impulses. Human nature is always guided by honor, status, a desire for recognition, and plagued by envy and jealousy. Mankind would be quite crass and uncouth without the thin veneer of civilization based on law, culture, tradition, and religion. Further, the Greeks would cause us to doubt any self-acclaimed theorist that would claim to have overcome human nature. The Athenians held no illusions of what it means to be human but they did believe in the equality of human beings and the wisdom of careful reflection and debate when it comes to democratic self-rule. The Athenians were aware of the innate human desire to grasp for more than it ought and many were ostracized or exiled whenever they sought more political power than one should have. If the Athenians feared anything, they feared tyranny in all its forms. The Athenians were not strictly concerned with the economy either, for they were aware of other cultures that had more wealth such as the Persians. But the Athenians understood that law and civic virtue supplied their freedom.

The Greeks provide us with ways to think about our current American democratic situation. It is hard to assess the contemporary American political situation as democratic. I can only give a few examples here of American democratic failure but there are many more. Whenever a representative places himself or herself above the law this person is functioning in an undemocratic manner. The same is true for political parties. Whenever one party dominates the political scene, the democratic process shuts down. The nomination process in America is equally nondemocratic, and parties are served instead of the people.

Today, candidates are chosen based on their popularity, not their merit or qualifications. In fact, political races today are a little more than publicity contests. A law enacted in Oregon in 1954 states that only candidates recognized by the national news media will be allowed on the ballots. This makes the media the nominators instead of the people. And media may, or may not, allow third parties representation. It is unclear how the fairness doctrine will accommodate third parties because it is based on a two-party framework. Since the 1920’s the media has become a major force in determining the contours of American politics often in the form of entertainment and at the expense of content and thoughtful debate. The media is more capable of shaping a candidate’s “image” rather than his or her ideas. Mass communication itself is not the problem, however, or at least, not the only one. Media as a technology and product of human beings will always bring with it the virtues and vices of human beings. Humans bring to the media the problems of the human condition itself. In America, the communication industry is largely unreflective and thoughtless because as a whole people are not given over to reflecting on the important issues of the day. But it must also be remembered that populism is not democracy.

In the next post, we will reflect on how America has shifted from a republic, to democracy, to populism, and finally to a thinly veiled constitutional bureaucracy.

1 Of course, the Progressive Party was a result of modernity but the Enlightenment provided the foundation of modernity and shared the same concerns.

2 Miller, 589.

3 Postmodernism can be taken too far. But some of its critiques of the Enlightenment and Modernity are valid.

Consensual Government, Liberal Arts

Democracy: What Have We Learned?

by Dave Seng

The roots of our being reach further and deeper into history than we are usually aware. – William Barrett, The Illusion of Technique.

I am going to take a quick break from our series on democracy to try to summarize what we have learned so far regarding a properly understood conception of democracy. I will return to our discussion of the American founding and develop more recent historical concerns soon.

So … what have we learned so far about genuine collective self-government? The ancient idea of government by the consent of citizens has been scorned, cheered, ridiculed, debated, and argued for and against by most of the greatest minds in the Western intellectual tradition. Within the idea of democracy, we see many of the virtues and vices of Western civilization itself. This should not be surprising because as human beings we carry over into our institutions, technology, and the societies we build, the deepest and most perplexing trait of human nature itself—that our efforts are always ineradicably a mixture of good and evil. This is the human paradox. Nonetheless, due to these seemingly contradictory qualities in human nature, history has shown that for a democracy to exist at all, important characteristics need to be in place such as the free exchange of ideas, the rule of law, public audit and accountability, discussion, debate, economic and individual freedom, dissent, and a constructive consensus among people for the purpose of building a government which serves the people. These ideals are central and inherent to the classical and Western idea of democracy. On the other hand, democracy can easily devolve into mob rule, partisan politics, and a mere clash of wills—the most illiberal aspects of our current political climate. Hopefully, this series has helped us understand human nature, our inherent need to understand why something is the way its, and a respect for our shared cultural heritage.

What else have we learned? History provides a helpful guide for understanding human nature. In fact, history is all we have to go on since it is impossible to study the future. More importantly, we study history because it gives us deeper insight into who we are as human beings and civilization generally. In a very real sense, it is memory that makes us who we are. Memories shape us—and our families, communities, and culture. This is why our cultural institutions preserve our history, learning, and collective memory. And this is true on the individual level. Anyone who has seen a loved one decline due to dementia, Alzheimer’s, or amnesia knows that the loss of memory is a loss of something deeply human and valuable. Without memory, an individual is a ruined imitation of what they once where. And the same is true for societies. Cultural amnesia can be devastating to a society. I believe this was one reason Pericles delivered his funeral oration. The historian Wilfred McClay put it this way, “Historical consciousness is to civilized society what memory is to individual identity. Without memory, and the stories within which memories are held suspended, one cannot say who or what one is; one cannot learn to use language, pass on knowledge, raise children, establish rules of conduct, or even dwell in society, let alone engage in science” (12).

We study history because it is fundamental to our nature as human beings and through such a study we realize the greatness and wretchedness of the human paradox. At the same time we have a drive for understanding and learning. We seem to have a natural tendency and desire to know why something is the case. We also seem to have an intrinsic desire to tell stories, pass down traditions, and to explore why or how something came to be.

History can be instructive if we choose to listen to it. Memory can be a powerful teacher. I believe that telling the story of the intellectual development of democracy will benefit everyone. Thucydides reminds his readers of the Athenian delegation that tried to resolve tensions between the Corinthians, Spartans, and Athenians prior to the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War. The Athenians desired to “call attention to the great power of Athens, and to refresh the memory of the old and enlighten the ignorance of the young, from a notion that their words might have the effect of inducing them to prefer tranquility to war” (367). Words and stories have a powerful impact on a society. When memory fades or cultural Alzheimer’s sets in, a civilization becomes empty and incapacitated. History is much more than dates and events, it is about the narratives and ideas that men and women have struggled with in an existential attempt to understand the human paradox.

Works Cited:

McClay, Wilfred. A Student’s Guide to U.S. History. ISI Books, 2000.

Thucydides. The History of The Peloponnesian War, Great Books Of The Western World, Vol. 5, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins, Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1996.

Here are a few other helpful guides on this topic:

Kagan, Donald. Pericles of Athens And The Birth of Democracy, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1991.

Lukacs, John. Democracy and Populism: Fear and Hatred. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005.

Richard, Carl. The Founders and the Classics: Greece, Rome, and the American Enlightenment. Harvard University Press, 1995.

Woodruff, Paul. First Democracy: The Challenge of An Ancient Idea. New York: Oxford University Press.

Consensual Government, Intellectual History, Liberal Arts

On Democracy, Part Twelve

by Dave Seng

Part eleven can be found here.

Republics historically have had more success against tyranny. This is where James Madison makes a distinction between a democracy and a republic. “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”1 Madison clearly argues for a republican form of government and believes it is the best form of rule to protect against the rise of factions. Madison believes in two advantages of a republican form of government. The first is in the representation of the citizens, and the second is the sheer size of large republics as a deterrent to factions. Madison believes that a body of elected representatives will actually serve as a barrier and protection to factious elements in the population. He writes,

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves. 2

Madison believes a body of elected citizens would wisely protect the union in a better manner than the people themselves could. This could only work, however, if these elected citizens were well educated in civic virtue, and believed in the institutions they were protecting. Elected officials that do not have a sense of civic responsibility, respect the rule of law, or in Madison’s words “comprehend and pursue great and national objects” do little for the common good. Furthermore, Madison is concerned with national and federal concerns rather than local and state issues. He wants to leave particular and local issues up to the states and strike a balance between national and state concerns. Madison believes that giving people more power at the local level will be better for the public good in general.

James Madison wanted a republican solution to republican problems. He is aware of the problems inherent to democracy. He believes a large republic offers the best solution to the problem of factions. In his view, a small republic with few representatives will be easily corrupted by factious elements. On the other hand, a body of elected officials that was too large would only offer “the confusion of a multitude.” Madison understands that the body of elected representatives ought to be too big to bribe (or, at least not all of them at once). Madison argues for a mean between a body of elected officials that is neither too small nor too big. However, a larger republic will solve the problems found in smaller republics. He believes the larger the republic, the more likely it will be to find virtuous citizens as representatives. And he thinks that in a large republic, factions would be less likely to succeed. Madison explains,

The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former rather than the latter. … Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater number variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength and to act in unison with each other. 3

In other words, Madison believes that by extending the republic to the many rather than the few, collusion between factious parties will be deterred. He concludes by asking several fascinating questions.

Hence, it clearly appears that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic – is enjoyed by the Union over the states composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and to schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union increase this security? Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.4

Madison’s questions and solutions offer many points for reflection. First, in other points of his writing and in Federalist Number 10, Madison argues for proportional representation. In Madison’s understanding the Union would not be the two-party system now in place but a multiparty arrangement that is proportionally represented according to the citizenry. Currently, it is very hard for third-party political candidates to even get on a ballot. Many people with views not sympathetic to either party are simply not represented and opt out of the political process altogether. Further, laws exist to keep third-party representation off ballots. In a proportional multiparty system, parties will be forced to work together for the common good. Harmony will have to be sought above political gain. Coalitions will have to work together rather than a tyranny of one party. Madison was clearly afraid of the tyranny of one party over others. That is clearly why he tells us that a proportional government would protect against “the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest?” When one party boasts of passing legislation without any input from the opposing party, that party is clearly acting in a tyrannical and undemocratic manner. However, a government with real proportional representation would depend on a genuine and authentic political conversation throughout the parties represented and at all levels. It would require a national conversation and it would also necessitate that the current parties relinquish their power (which is unlikely). Madison is also aware that an increase in the variety of parties represented would add to the increase of security of the nation. When people are truly represented factions will be discouraged. People will be given a voice in their government and legitimate concerns can be addressed.

1 Ibid.

2 Ibid., 52.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid., 53.